Rape can’t be treated as private dispute to be settled through compromise: HC

Srinagar, Jun 3: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has declined to grant bail to a man from north Kashmir’s Kupwara in connection with a case related to alleged rape and criminal intimidation. Observing that the offence of rape is an offence not only against victim but also against society. 

A bench of Justice M A Chowdhary, while rejecting bail plea of Farooq Ahmad of Sogam, observed that offences of rape have serious societal ramifications and cannot be treated as private disputes capable of being settled through compromise. The accused has been booked in an FIR (17/2022) registered under sections 376(rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC at Women Police Station Kupwara. “This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that offence under Section 376 IPC is an offence not only against the victim but also against society, to be treated as private disputes capable of being resolved through compromise between the parties,” the court said. Underscoring that the gravity of the allegations and the existence of a prima facie case weighed against granting the concession of bail to the accused, the court noted that the prosecutrix (victim) had supported the prosecution case both in the FIR and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.

The court observed that issues relating to alleged contradictions in her testimony could only be examined during trial. In response to the contention that a petition seeking quashing of the FIR had earlier been filed by the prosecutrix, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding such a plea would have to be appreciated during trial. The plea could not dilute the seriousness of the allegations at the bail stage, it said. Moreover, the court noted that apprehensions regarding possible influence on witnesses and prejudice to a fair trial could not be ignored, particularly in view of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the accusations. The Court rejected the bail application, saying its observations should not affect the merits of the trial pending before the Fast Track Court, Kupwara.

The court also dismissed a related criminal revision petition challenging an order of the trial court that had rejected the accused’s application under Section 233(3) of CrPC seeking summoning of additional defence witnesses. Observing that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion, the bench noted that the accused had already examined three defence witnesses and that the proposed additional evidence was not necessary for just adjudication of the case. Noting no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court, the bench upheld the trial court’s decision. At the same time, it directed that efforts be made to conclude the trial expeditiously.